Skip to content

Jimmy Kennedy won’t be testifying in bounty appeal

121019012918_Jimmy Kennedy NFL whistleblower 640 uspress AP

The involvement of former Vikings coach Brad Childress in the bounty appeal hearing was curious, to say the least.  He has no knowledge of anything related to what the Saints were or weren’t doing; instead, Childress was the guy who complained to the league that the Saints had a bounty on former Vikings quarterback Brett Favre, based allegedly on information former Vikings defensive tackle Jimmy Kennedy had provided to Childress.

So Kennedy will be testifying regarding where he heard about the bounty, right?

Nope.

Kennedy tells PFT that he won’t be testifying, and that neither his agent nor his lawyer were contacted regarding the possibility.

Basically, then, the only value Childress could have brought to the table was that Kennedy told him that someone told him the Saints had a bounty system.  And Kennedy won’t be testifying.

Permalink 14 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints, Rumor Mill
14 Responses to “Jimmy Kennedy won’t be testifying in bounty appeal”
  1. fuglyflorio says: Dec 3, 2012 2:26 PM

    Outside of all those confessions and admissions of guilt there’s no proof any of this happened.

  2. robf2010 says: Dec 3, 2012 2:41 PM

    Any semblance to kangaroos is purely coincidental

  3. louisianafootballfan says: Dec 3, 2012 2:53 PM

    You would think, by now, that the league would at least give the impression of a squeaky clean appeals hearing. Instead they keep making this look shadier and shadier. The federal judge is going to have a field day with the “impartiality” shown during these hearings.

  4. meldrel says: Dec 3, 2012 3:13 PM

    Well that would make Childress’ testimony today moot.

  5. davikes says: Dec 3, 2012 3:13 PM

    They don’t need Kennedy to testify because it isn’t really a “legal” proceeding. They can’t subpoena Kennedy, so he doesn’t have to testify if he doesn’t want to. It’s a disciplinary process run by a business in accordance with it’s labor agreement. Once it eventually goes to court, then he might be compelled to testify.

    Childress testifying just shows WHY the second phase of the investigation began. Like him or not, he’s credible. He had no reason to make anything up, and to invent something like that would cause legal problems for him – slander/libel.

  6. mrfoozball says: Dec 3, 2012 3:23 PM

    Allegations based on heresay. Nice job Goodell.

  7. goodolebaghead says: Dec 3, 2012 4:23 PM

    Can someone please show me where it looks like the Saints kept a ‘bounty’ program going after the NFCCG2009? Chili complained to the NFL, the NFL asked NOLA to stop. It appears they did. Then two years later Cerullo writes an email, and suddenly they are on the hot seat. It seriously looks like all the ‘crimes’ happened during the 2009 playoffs BEFORE the Saints were asked to stop. Not stopping was why the NFL claimed they were punishing the Saints and not every other team that stopped when asked. Can anyone help me out here?

  8. goodellgate says: Dec 3, 2012 5:02 PM

    ***davikes says:
    Dec 3, 2012 3:13 PM
    He had no reason to make anything up, and to invent something like that would cause legal problems for him – slander/libel.***

    Really ?? Instead of accepting the blame for his bad coaching and the fact that if the Saints hit Favre multiple times, it’s because his OL wasn’t doing its job, it seems to me that it’s easier to blame the Saints.

    And i’ts not like Chilly never got caught lying before.

  9. cwwgk says: Dec 3, 2012 5:03 PM

    There’s no need for Kennedy to testify. Everyone knows what his testimony would be: that he never knew of, or told anyone about, a bounty program. That testimony favors the players so he doesn’t need to be cross examined by their lawyers.

    Childress’ version of events is the exact opposite. As such, he likely testified to allow the players’ lawyers to attack his story. Childress was produced for the benefit of the players not the league.

    In the realm of employment disciplinary matters, the players are being afforded a far more balanced and fair appeal proceeding than any other private employee would receive in the entire United States.

    Yes, they are.

  10. goodellgate says: Dec 3, 2012 5:09 PM

    Well yes they are, if you forget that Tag is Goodell’s mentor, works for his lawyer, and is still getting paid by the NFL.

  11. thejuddstir says: Dec 3, 2012 6:36 PM

    No different than Jonathan Vilma “telling” Drew Brees that he didn’t offer 10G and now we are suppose to believe Brees. Brees own admission that he didn’t sit in on defensive meetings but yet he can state with authority that there was no such thing as a bounty. Either Brees is lying about knowing nothing or his testimony and statements are nothing more than heresay.

  12. namelessfacelessfan says: Dec 3, 2012 7:05 PM

    Sorry, I must have missed where Brees was testifying in this case?

  13. stellarperformance says: Dec 4, 2012 10:11 AM

    They don’t have video tape, audio tape, or eye witnesses of envelopes exchanging hands….the normal type of “proof.” The involved parties all have money and money talks. The best lawyers will keep this thing going forever. They did it and they know they did it. It may end up that makng their lives miserable in the meantime is all the punishment they’ll ever get. We got that going for us.

  14. musicman495 says: Dec 4, 2012 8:01 PM

    thejuddstir says: Dec 3, 2012 6:36 PM

    No different than Jonathan Vilma “telling” Drew Brees that he didn’t offer 10G and now we are suppose to believe Brees.
    ————————–
    Well, except for the fact that Vilma and a dozen other players said under oath in federal district court that it never happened, yeah, it’s just like that.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!